Intergrating conventional MRI,texture analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI,and susceptibility weighted imaging for glioma grading

Abstract

Background

The application of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in glioma grading is limited and non-specific.

Purpose

To investigate the application values of MRI, texture analysis (TA) of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and intratumoral susceptibility signal (ITSS) on susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), alone and in combination, for glioma grading.

Material and Methods

Fifty-two patients with pathologically confirmed gliomas who underwent DCE-MRI and SWI were enrolled in this retrospective study. Conventional MRIs were evaluated by the VASARI scoring system. TA of DCE-MRI-derived parameters and the degree of ITSS were compared between low-grade gliomas (LGGs) and high-grade gliomas (HGGs). The diagnostic ability of each parameter and their combination for glioma grading were analyzed.

Results

Significant statistical differences in VASARI features were observed between LGGs and HGGs (P < 0.05), of which the enhancement quality had the highest area under the curve (AUC) (0.873) with 93.3% sensitivity and 80% specificity. The TA of DCE-MRI derived parameters were significantly different between LGGs and HGGs (P < 0.05), of which the uniformity of K^trans had the highest AUC (0.917) with 93.3% sensitivity and 90% specificity. The degree of ITSS was significantly different between LGGs and HGGs (P < 0.001). The AUC of the ITSS was 0.925 with 93.3% sensitivity and 90% specificity. The best discriminative power was obtained from a combination of enhancement quality, K^trans- uniformity, and ITSS, resulting in 96.7% sensitivity, 100.0% specificity, and AUC of 0.993.

Conclusion

Combining conventional MRI, TA of DCE-MRI, and ITSS on SWI may help to improve the differentiation between LGGs and HGGs.

Keywords

Glioma dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI susceptibility weighted imaging texture analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Caulo

Panara

Tortora

et al . Data-driven grading of brain gliomas: a mulitiparametric MR imaging study. Radiology 2014; 272:494–503.

Raja

Sinha

Saini

et al . Assessment of tissue heterogeneity using diffusion tensor and diffusion kurtosis imaging for grading gliomas. Neuroradiology 2016; 58:1217–1231.

Skogen

Schulz

Dormagen

et al . Diagnostic performance of texture analysis on MRI in grading cerebral gliomas. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85:824–829.

Zhao

Yang

Luo

et al . Quantitative evaluation of diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR in tumor parenchyma and peritumoral area for distinction of brain tumors. PLos One 2015; 10:e0138573.

Van Cauter

De Keyzer

Sima

et al . Integrating diffusion kurtosis imaging, dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI, and short echotime chemical shift imaging for grading gliomas. NeuroOncol 2014; 16:1010–1021.

Ulyte

Katsaros

liouta

et al . Prognostic value of preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion parameters for high-grade glioma patients. Neuroradiology 2016; 58:1197–1208.

Arevalo-Perez

Kebede

Peck

et al . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in low-grade versus anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Neuro imaging 2016; 26:366–371.

Nardone

Tini

Biondi

et al.

Prognostic value of MR imaging texture analysis in brain non-small cell lung cancer oligo-metastases undergoing stereotactic Irradiation. Cureus 2016; 8:e584.

Hsu

Watkins

Kwan

et al.

Susceptibility-weighted imaging of gliomas: update on current imaging status and future directions. J Neuroimaging 2016; 26:383–390.

10.

Zhu

Kang

et al . Glioma grading by microvascular permeabilityparameters derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and Introtumoral susceptibility signal on susceptibility weighted imaging. Cancer Imaging 2015; 15:4.

11.

Nicolasjilwan

Yan

et al . Addition of MR imaging features and genetic biomarkers strengthens glioblastoma survival prediction in TCGA patients. J Neuroradiol 2015; 42:212–221.

12.

Hsu

Watkins

Kwan

et al . Susceptibility-weighted imaging of glioma: Update on current imaging status and future directions. J Neuroimaging.2016; 26:383–390.

13.

Park

Kim

Jahng

et al . Semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals using non-contrast-enhanced high-field high-resolution susceptibility-weighted imaging in patients with gliomas: comparison with MR perfusion imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30:1402–1408.

14.

Mohammed

Xunning

Haibin

et al . Clinical applications of susceptibility-weighted imaging in detecting and grading intracranial gliomas: a review. Cancer Imaging 2013; 13:186–195.

15.

Gutman

Cooper

Hwang

et al . MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoama data set. Radiology 2013; 267:560–569.

16.

Rios Velazquez

Meier

Dunn

Jr et al . Fully automatic GBM segmentation in the TCGA-GBM dataset: Prognosis and correlation with VASARI features. Sci Rep 2015; 5:16822.

17.

Upadhyay

Waldman

AD.

Conventional MRI evaluation of gliomas.

Br J Radiol 2011; 84:107–111.

18.

Law

Yang

Wang

et al.

Gliomas grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24:1989–1998.

19.

Falk

Fahlstrom

Rostrup

et al . Discrimination between glioma grades II and III in suspected low-grade gliomas using dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging: a histogram analysis approach. Neuroradiology 2014; 56:1031–1038.

20.

Arevalo-Perez

Peck

Young

et al . Dynamic contrast-enhanced persion MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in grading of gliomas. J Neuroimaging 2015; 25:792–798.

21.

Santarosa

Castellano

Conte

et al . Dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging for glioma grading: preliminary comparison of vessel compartment and permeability parameters using hotspot and histogram analysis. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85:1147–1156.

22.

Paldino

Barboriak

DP.

Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2009; 17:277–289.

23.

Essig

Shiroishi

Nguyen

et al.

Perfusion MRI: the five Freguently asked technical questions. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200:24–34.

24.

Kinoshita

Sakai

Arita

et al.

Introduction of high throughput magnetic resonance t2-weighted image texture analysis for WHO grade 2 and 3 gliomas.

PLoS One 2016; 11:e0164268.

25.

Davnall

Yip

Ljungqvist

et al . Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 2012; 3:573–589.

26.

Skogen

Schulz

Dormagen

et al . Diagnostic performance of texture analysis on MRI in grading cerebral gliomas. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85:824–829.

27.

Ning

Eschbacher

et al . Multi-parametric MRI and texture analysis to visualize spatial histologic heterogeneity and tumor extent in glioblastoma. PLoS One 2015, 10:e0141506.

28.

Xie

Chen

Fang

et al.

Contrast-enhanced MRI derived model-free and model-based parameter maps in glioma grading. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47:1099–1111.

29.

Haralick

Shanmugam

Dinstein

Textural features for image classification.

IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1973; 3:610–621.

30.

Ryu

Choi

Park

et al . Glioma: application of whole-tumor texture analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging for the evaluation of tumor heterogeneity. PLoS One 2014; 9:e108335.

31.

Jung

Yeom

Kim

et al . Glioma: application of histogram analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters from T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to tumor grading. Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35:1103–1110.

32.

et al . Susceptibility-weighted imaging in grading brain astrocytomas. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75:e81–85.

33.

Radbruch

Wiestler

Kramp

et al . Differentiation of glioblastoma and primary CNS lymphomas using susceptibility weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:552–556.